654:
be missed. I added a portrait of
Whittaker and a photo of Einstein. The readable prose size is 48 kB, so it is in between the categories of "Length alone does not justify division" and "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". So I wasn't sure. If more content were to be added, I would say it definitely should split. The books have enough notability that each is separately notable, but I am not sure if anything else needs to be said about it. I am not sure either way, there are good arguments for both sides on this one. The main argument to keep it together is that the first volume of second edition is basically same as first edition and many of the references talk about both. I am open to suggestions, it is certainly a future possibility. Please let me know if you there are any more issues. Thanks again for taking the time to review the article!
42:
622:
600:
579:
539:
509:
472:
451:
415:
394:
377:
334:
279:
206:
653:
Thank you for taking the time to review this! I have made changes to fix all of these problems, except for the one that begins "move", did you mean to put something else there? I ended up deleting a couple of problematic statements that did not seem particularly necessary for the article and so won't
720:
was a mistake, I was thinking about asking to move the
Publication history/Release details to the end matter, but decided against it, since it seems more a matter of personal preference. I'm glad you've cut down on the praise somewhat. The article favors Whittaker's point of view a bit more than the
761:
Thank you again for your careful review, I greatly appreciate the feedback and the promotion! I have changed the second paragraph of the lead to both add in a potential DYK statement and to make it clear that scientific consensus is not on
Whittaker's side in the intro. Let me know if you have any
605:
The single image and caption are relevant, but a single picture is not enough. The images do not all have to be of the book itself, you can include some of the scientists/experiments/whatever you think is relevant. But surely you can find a few relevant illustrations to
676:
I have made some additional edits fixing mistakes I saw and have reduced the number of times the word "praised" is used. I also ran it through Word for spelling and grammar to be safe. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the page. Thanks again!
766:
you have to add your name and keep track of the articles you review there to take part (it's not automatic). I saw you were reviewing one before you started mine, so I thought I would let you know in case you didn't see it or didn't know it wasn't automatic.
424:
set forth the relativity theory of
Poincaré and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention", and he credited Einstein only with being the first to publish the correct relativistic formulas for stellar aberration and the Doppler
47:
804:, but the GA criteria are not so strict. As for the drive, I'm not personally interested in the review awards, but there's a pretty big backlog of GA reviews, so I agree that it's a good place to focus. Nice work with the article. 〈
126:
695:
Looks good. I was taking some time to try to decisively tidy up the copyright status of the images, but it turns out to basically be a black hole of interacting copyright law from about a half dozen countries. Everything here
122:
107:
705:
99:
52:
763:
343:
Citing Max Born (1956), Gerald Holton (1960, 1964, 1968), Charles
Scribner (1964), Stanley Goldberg (1967, 1969), Elie Zahar (1973), Tetu Hirosige (1976), Kenneth F. Schaffner (1976), and Arthur I. Miller
223:- Give the full name of the scientist (not just last name) and wikilink their page on the first mention of them in a section. It's OK to use just the last name on second mention within a section, though.
247:
Infobox - are the different page numbers for the different editions? Better to clarify inline (1st ed.) (2nd ed., vol. 1) (2nd ed., vol. 2) if you can. Ditto for publication date and publisher.
716:
Anyway, back to the article itself. You're right, I've accidentally conflated the article size with the prose size, so the article probably isn't too long in its current form. The word
115:
17:
704:, I guess we have to settle for the generic US public domain tags on Whittaker, Born, and Lorentz. (e.g. apparently Whittaker's portrait was one of the portraits involved in the
92:
518:
section. But it's just surface style, the broader substance appears to be quite representative of the sources as far as I can tell. So no other concerns beyond that.
269:
80:
70:
166:
Barely a month old, but it's already in pretty good shape. You've put some serious work into this, Footlessmouse. I'm happy to look this over in detail. 〈
569:
371:
273:
265:
701:
257:
366:, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
490:
territory. I can see a reasonable argument made to keep unified or split (probably by edition), but I'd like to hear your thoughts here.
184:
367:
261:
627:
The article is close. On substance, I think enough good content is there, but the issues mentioned above should be addressed. 〈
75:
816:
776:
741:
686:
663:
639:
178:
160:
388:
156:
708:, and wikimedia commons apparently doesn't have a generic UK public domain tag?) Even some pictures from featured articles
298:
book established
Whittaker as a leading historian of science, he was also widely recognized as a preeminent mathematician
353:
More broadly, no need to list the publication place inline for any of the reviews - that's what the references are for.
300:
Try to make this more substantial: the combination of "leading", "widely recognized", and "preeminent" is getting into
573:
590:
359:
253:
211:
Mostly clear, missing a few full names for scientists and wikilinks to technical terms with their own articles.
561:
483:
A parenthetical aside seems out of scope. Leaving a redlink is OK until somebody writes an article about him.
772:
682:
659:
565:
466:
316:
462:
445:
226:
Other examples: "Fitzgerald" "Dyson, in his 1954 review,", "In his 1954 Nature review, Hagedorn notes "
409:
405:
812:
795:
768:
737:
678:
655:
635:
594:
533:
339:
The references themselves are excellent. However, the text is a bit cluttered with citation info.
174:
150:
370:, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
327:
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
487:
700:
be public domain, and is tagged as such, but while I was able to find more suitable tags on
553:
722:
188:
721:
consensus history, but the article is specifically about his book, so that emphasis not
506:
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
499:
428:
347:
328:
805:
801:
756:
730:
709:
671:
628:
515:
291:
221:
still largely focuses on
Descartes, Newton, Fermat, Hooke, and Huygens, among others.
167:
146:
363:
725:
in this context. You've fixed the other issues I brought up, so I'm going to
203:
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
762:
concerns, given you just promoted it. Also, there is a drive going on at
301:
584:
Only picture is a correctly tagged image of a book in the public domain.
711:
have the same over-generic tags, so I guess we just ignore the problem?
532:
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
706:
National
Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute
800:
That's about it, thanks. Probably needs some more polishing before
514:
The article is a little heavy on praise, as I mentioned in 1a
764:
WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020
544:
A minor grammar fix recently, but otherwise pretty stable.
456:
Quite comprehensive coverage from the number of sources.
18:
Talk:A History of the
Theories of Aether and Electricity
134:
103:
481:
the namesake of the
Sparrow criterion in spectroscopy
288:
Overview of Volume I, Reception of the first volume
486:At just under 88kb, the article is flirting with
399:Article seems to follow from the sources nicely.
8:
465:without going into unnecessary detail (see
430:. Should be rephrased. The rest seems fine.
30:
61:
33:
480:
423:
342:
297:
287:
241:
236:Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies
235:
229:
220:
214:
7:
551:Is it illustrated, if possible, by
232:- reformat to hide disambiguation
24:
346:- No need for dates in the text,
620:
598:
577:
537:
507:
470:
449:
413:
392:
375:
332:
277:
204:
372:scientific citation guidelines
290:- Simplify section titles per
1:
427:is the same phrasing used at
420:One sentence seems too close:
817:19:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
777:06:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
742:02:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
687:23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
664:04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
640:02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
621:
599:
578:
538:
508:
471:
450:
414:
393:
376:
350:style refs are depreciated.
333:
278:
205:
179:01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
161:01:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
839:
329:the layout style guideline
230:Thomas Preston (scientist)
570:valid fair use rationales
215:Chapter 4 convers the...
294:. The rest are similar.
284:A couple things to fix:
252:B. It complies with the
593:to the topic, and have
368:likely to be challenged
238:- add inline wikilinks
439:broad in its coverage
536:or content dispute:
463:focused on the topic
444:A. It addresses the
406:copyright violations
389:no original research
322:no original research
404:D. It contains no
274:list incorporation
242:old quantum theory
595:suitable captions
572:are provided for
360:in-line citations
89:
88:
830:
799:
760:
675:
624:
623:
602:
601:
581:
580:
574:non-free content
566:copyright status
541:
540:
511:
510:
474:
473:
453:
452:
417:
416:
396:
395:
382:Well-referenced.
379:
378:
364:reliable sources
336:
335:
281:
280:
208:
207:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
838:
837:
833:
832:
831:
829:
828:
827:
809:
793:
754:
734:
669:
632:
387:C. It contains
256:guidelines for
254:manual of style
171:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
836:
834:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
807:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
747:
746:
745:
744:
732:
713:
712:
690:
689:
649:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
630:
619:Pass or Fail:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
589:B. Images are
587:
586:
585:
560:A. Images are
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
484:
478:
459:
458:
457:
448:of the topic:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
421:
402:
401:
400:
385:
384:
383:
356:
355:
354:
351:
340:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
305:
295:
285:
266:words to watch
250:
249:
248:
245:
239:
233:
227:
224:
218:
212:
169:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
835:
818:
814:
810:
803:
797:
796:Footlessmouse
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
778:
774:
770:
769:Footlessmouse
765:
758:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
739:
735:
728:
724:
719:
715:
714:
710:
707:
703:
699:
694:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
679:Footlessmouse
673:
668:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
656:Footlessmouse
652:
641:
637:
633:
626:
625:
618:
617:
615:
612:
604:
603:
596:
592:
588:
583:
582:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
556:
555:
550:
543:
542:
535:
531:
530:
528:
524:
517:
513:
512:
505:
504:
502:
501:
496:
489:
482:
476:
475:
468:
467:summary style
464:
460:
455:
454:
447:
443:
442:
440:
436:
429:
426:
419:
418:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
390:
386:
381:
380:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
349:
345:
338:
337:
330:
326:
325:
323:
319:
318:
313:
303:
299:
293:
292:MOS:NOBACKREF
289:
283:
282:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:lead sections
255:
251:
243:
237:
231:
222:
216:
210:
209:
202:
201:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
190:
187:review – see
186:
181:
180:
176:
172:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
726:
717:
697:
650:
648:
613:
552:
526:
498:
461:B. It stays
446:main aspects
438:
321:
315:
244:- wikilink.
198:well written
197:
191:for criteria
183:
182:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
564:with their
477:Two things:
104:visual edit
729:review. 〈
488:WP:TOOLONG
410:plagiarism
317:verifiable
304:territory.
217:fix typo.
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
362:are from
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
757:Forbes72
723:WP:UNDUE
702:Poincaré
672:Forbes72
591:relevant
534:edit war
302:MOS:PUFF
189:WP:WIAGA
157:contribs
147:Forbes72
76:Criteria
698:appears
614:Overall
500:neutral
425:effect.
358:B. All
348:WP:HARV
344:(1981).
270:fiction
127:history
108:history
94:Article
806:Forbes
802:WP:FAC
731:Forbes
629:Forbes
568:, and
562:tagged
554:images
527:stable
525:Is it
516:WP:WTW
497:Is it
485:-: -->
479:-: -->
437:Is it
422:-: -->
352:-: -->
341:-: -->
314:Is it
306:-: -->
296:-: -->
286:-: -->
272:, and
262:layout
246:-: -->
240:-: -->
234:-: -->
228:-: -->
225:-: -->
219:-: -->
213:-: -->
196:Is it
168:Forbes
320:with
136:Watch
16:<
813:Talk
773:talk
738:Talk
727:pass
718:move
683:talk
660:talk
651:Note
636:Talk
606:add.
408:nor
307:Move
175:Talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
469:):
815:〉
811:|
808:72
775:)
740:〉
736:|
733:72
685:)
662:)
638:〉
634:|
631:72
616::
597::
576::
557:?
529:?
503:?
441:?
412::
391::
374::
331::
324:?
276::
268:,
264:,
260:,
200:?
185:GA
177:〉
173:|
170:72
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
798::
794:@
771:(
759::
755:@
681:(
674::
670:@
658:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.